Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoyden1

Hoyden1

Hoyden1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoyden1/Archive.

24 April 2013

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Bloomcity (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ojeffs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ebenbach (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Multiple almost identical !votes in quick succession at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists. Normally discussions there get little response and usually from established users. Early in the discussion the comments tend to be detailed as to why the editors support the request. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Given that this article is the subject of an op ed in the New York Times and in the Huffington Post, which explained to the public in explicit detail about apparent sexism on Wikipedia, and that these editorials and the subsequent facebook and twitter reposting of them have been read by perhaps twenty million people I don't think that there is anything unexpected about three new accounts posting in the commentary.

The fact that these new accounts posted the same thing in the same words, should be taken as evidence to indicate that they are newbies, not sock puppets. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed. Especially since objections have been raised on the CfD page over the striking out of comments by the suspected socks, it would be helpful for a CU to determine if stronger evidence exists to link these accounts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the behavoir on the CfD is suspicious, technically:

Bloomcity and Ojeffs are Confirmed
Hoyden1 is Possible
Ebenbach is Unlikely

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note As noted in the CFD, the discussion has been heavily canvassed on Facebook and the press, so there's not much difference whether any new single-purpose accounts are the same person or multiple random people appearing from all over the web. The user who closes the CFD will just have to take the canvassing into account. That said, I have blocked the confirmed accounts. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Rs chen 7754 07:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]